Hostname: page-component-5d59c44645-lfgmx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-03T00:33:39.077Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Comparison of INTAKE24 (an online 24hr dietary recall tool) with an interviewer-led 24hr recall method in 11–16 year olds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 April 2015

J. Delve
Affiliation:
Human Nutrition Research Centre, Institute of Health & Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne
E. Simpson
Affiliation:
Human Nutrition Research Centre, Institute of Health & Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne
A. J. Adamson
Affiliation:
Human Nutrition Research Centre, Institute of Health & Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne
I. Poliakov
Affiliation:
Culture Lab, School of Computing Science, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne
P. Olivier
Affiliation:
Culture Lab, School of Computing Science, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne
E. Foster
Affiliation:
Human Nutrition Research Centre, Institute of Health & Society, Newcastle University, Newcastle upon Tyne
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Abstract
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2015 

INTAKE24 is an online 24hr dietary recall system developed for use by 11–24 year olds. The system was developed through an iterative design process. The accuracy and precision of the system compared to the traditional interviewer-led method was tested in 180 people aged 11–24 years living in Scotland. Both methods followed the 24hr multiple pass recall method(Reference Raper, Perloff and Ingwersen1). The results described below are for a subset of the 11–16 year old population.

Forty 11–16 year olds completed INTAKE24 and an interviewer-led 24hr recall on the same day on four occasions. A weighted randomisation was used with 75% of participants completing INTAKE24 first and 25% completing the interviewer-led recall first. All recalls took place at a secondary school in Dundee. Each participant was given a unique login for INTAKE24 and asked to follow the instructions to complete the recall. Once completed, the participant completed a 24hr dietary recall with a researcher (vice-versa for those completing the interviewer-led recall first). The interviewer-led 24hr recalls followed the interview protocol used in the LIDNS(Reference Nelson, Erens and Bates2). Portion size was assessed using the Young Person's Food Atlas(Reference Foster, Matthews and Lloyd3).

The accuracy of estimation of nutrient intakes using INTAKE24 was calculated as a ratio by dividing each participant's estimated nutrient intake from INTAKE24 by the estimated intake from the interviewer-led recall. A ratio of less than 1 indicates an under-estimation of intake using INTAKE24 and above 1 represents an over-estimation. The closer the ratio to 1, the more accurate the estimate. The table below indicates the accuracy of the online tool. Limits of agreement were applied so that 95% of the differences would lie between the limits.

Mean energy intakes using INTAKE24 were underestimated compared with interviewer-led recall estimates by just 3%. Energy intakes ranged from an underestimation of 36% to an over estimation of 47%. Approximately half of the INTAKE24 energy intakes were within 10% of the interviewer-led intakes, and all were within 50%. The results are comparable with other existing online recall systems such as YANA-C, which also underestimated energy intakes by an average of 3% in 11–14 year olds(Reference Vereecken, Covents and Sichert-Hellert4). The findings show promising results for INTAKE24 as a low cost dietary recall method for use in 11–16 year olds.

This work was funded by the Food Standards Agency, Scotland.

References

1.Raper, N, Perloff, B, Ingwersen, L et al. (2004) Journal of Food Composition and Analysis 17, 545555.Google Scholar
2.Nelson, M, Erens, B, Bates, B et al. (2007) Low Income Diet and Nutrition Survey. Volume 1: Background, Methods and Sample characteristics. London: The Stationary Office.Google Scholar
3.Foster, E, Matthews, JN, Lloyd, J et al. (2008) Br J Nutr 99, 175–84.Google Scholar
4.Vereecken, CA, Covents, M, Sichert-Hellert, W et al. (2008) Int J Obes (Lond) 32, S26–34Google Scholar